>> An image of a planned escape route out of a
>> building in case of a fire that has an alt attribute of "a picture"
>> would surely be bordering on negligent if not criminally
>> irresponsible.
>>
>
>This is where "compliance" and usability part company. But of course,
you
>*are* correct, it would be criminal, yet the way things are currently
worded
>(especially Section 508, which is a Standard, as opposed to WCAG which is
a
>guideline), "a picture" would satisfy the requirement.
Hmm, that's not my opinion. When I read 508:
Â§ 1194.22 Web-based intranet and internet information and applications.
(a) A text equivalent for every non-text element shall be provided (e.g.,
via "alt", "longdesc", or in element content).
I focus on the term "equivalent". The alt text of "a picture" does not
satisfy, even a weak definition of "equivalent", So it's not only non
compliant, it is criminal.
by the way, the wording is almost identical to WCAG 1.0
1.1 Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element (e.g., via "alt",
"longdesc", or in element content).
and gratefully WCAG 2.0 has normatively defined some terms so at least
there is a documented definition:
alternate version
version that provides all of the same information and functionality and is
as up to date as any non-conformant content
Regards,
Phill Jenkins
IBM Worldwide Accessibility Center
http://www.ibm.com/able